That question of course is only important if we are going to have it shoved down our throats, which apparently we are...

Anyway, read this and you'll see one doctor's thought on how it could be done.

Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former Arizona state senator.

.

Commentary by Tom Patterson




“The cupboard is bare”, said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently in reference to the federal budget crisis. “There’s [sic] no more cuts to make. It’s really important that people understand that.”

It’s tempting to ignore this as more nonsense from a notorious airhead. Unfortunately, it is a widely held notion, especially among the political class. Back in the day, Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay also explained that a balanced budget wasn’t feasible because there were no more possible cuts.

So we’re stuck. Even though we can’t pay our bills as it is, we have no choice but to keep piling on debt and passing it off to future generations while hoping eventually some end-game will magically appear. Right?

Wrong. The federal budget has grown from $1.9 billion in 2001 to $3.8 billion today. It is chock-full of expenditures that are decidedly nonessential and could be cut without much difficulty.

Take the Federal Crop Insurance program. It was created in the 1930s to protect small farmers from being devastated by crop failures. But Ma and Pa toiling away on the family farm is mostly in the past. Instead, the payments go to wealthy conglomerates and landowners like the Rockefellers and Scottie Pippen.

The program costs $9 billion annually and really should be eliminated since crop insurance is commercially available. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, even a 15% reduction in subsidies to farmers with incomes over $750,000 would save $1.2 billion.

Many if not most federal agencies are far from essential. The International Trade Administration subsidizes companies that export goods abroad. In other words, it’s $463 million worth of crony capitalism which we would be better off without. Our trading partners rightly complain of the unfairness these handouts create.

The Office of Energy Efficiency spends nearly $1 billion on “training” and resources for businesses and universities who want to “increase the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.” The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank Act, burns through $497 million yearly yet is overly intrusive, questionably unconstitutional and vague in its mission.

The Economic Development Administration, also in the business of picking winners and losers, spends $286 million in grants to businesses unable to attract investors in the capital markets. You can guess the results.

There’s more low hanging fruit. The federal government pays $156 million to employees who do nothing but work for their own union. Michelle Obama has a personal staff of over 25 to help her get through her days. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control spends an unknown but significant amount hectoring people about their eating and drinking habits and lobbying local governments to outlaw practices of which they disapprove.

The explosive growth of SNAP (food stamps) and SSDI in the last five years has been well documented. Yet when fiscally conservative legislators recently proposed anti-fraud protections for SSDI and work requirements for able-bodied adults in SNAP, they were branded as mean and even “immoral”.

So in the spirit of compromise could we at least cease funding recruiters for SNAP and “advocates” (lawyers) for SSDI? People who need and deserve help don’t have to be talked into it.

Want bigger fish to fry? The Department of Education spends billions on…what? They don’t educate a single student but they write loads of research papers read by each other. The Department of Energy, like the rooster coaxing the sun to rise, supposedly ensures a grateful nation of its energy supply while the Department of Commerce oversees the disbursement of crony capitalism.

The real money is, of course, in the major entitlements – Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid – which comprise two-thirds of the federal budget. Politicians quail at the thought, but the relatively painless measure of gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 would nearly erase the Social Security deficit in 20 years. How hard could that be?

Nancy Pelosi and her ilk know all of this and more, of course. But they don’t want even painless budget cuts because their power is based on growing government and having as many people as possible dependent on it. We would be foolish to listen to them."

Well, great, we wave the magic wand and cut all those excess expenditures he mentions specifically (which I more or less agree with), the total comes to less than $12 Billion or just over ONE days expenditures of our current Federal budget, or put another way, less than 3 TENTHS PERCENT. Oh, that will cure the problem alright.

This is all quite correct of course. If I were King all the freebies would be shut off.You want to riot because you were told to work instead of sit on your ass waiting for your (entitlements). {disgusting + inappropriate term} you would starve,but as to discord in the streets,if you cause it you will be shot. The other cases of total misapropriation of funds in Washington could be dealt with likewise.Basically just using a little bit of common sense.Anybody with the sense that God promised a rag doll could figure this out,if they wanted to. See,if I were King,I would'nt last a day because of crap like this instead of what is best for our nation. I am also extremely peeved to be forced to finance this atrocity or be (held accountable).

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Well, great, we wave the magic wand and cut all those excess expenditures he mentions specifically (which I more or less agree with), the total comes to less than $12 Billion or just over ONE days expenditures of our current Federal budget, or put another way, less than 3 TENTHS PERCENT. Oh, that will cure the problem alright.

Sooooo......since it's only one days worth let's just let it ride......

Gotta start somewhere, might as well start here. CUT "EM ALL!!!!!!!!!


.

I took it from the good Dr.'s article that it was intelligent specific cutting of federal expenditures which could pay for ObamaCare, not that the few programs he mentions would do it all on their own.

Anyway, I found it interesting, in that he starts identifying some specific programs & departments we should totally eliminate.

Most other conservatives/authors say we should cut federal expenses, but never get specific about precisely WHICH expenses we should cut. That is no help. Any twit can piss and moan and wring his hands, about anything. Of course the liberal authors don't even have a clue about how real-life economics work.

And the bottom line is that a competent president and congress would WORK HARD at cutting ALL unnecessary programs/departments, and would work even harder at trying to eliminate all the waste, pork barrel and old-boy wasteful expenses from the departments and programs we should keep.

Essentially, the government could pay for what it needs just the same way you or I do. We prioritize what is absolutely required and then reduce or eliminate everything else.

We don't balance our personal budgets through one or two big cuts, but by taking meaningful slices out of every aspect of our possible expenditures. And "Voila!", we make it through the month.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I took it from the good Dr.'s article that it was intelligent specific cutting of federal expenditures which could pay for ObamaCare, not that the few programs he mentions would do it all on their own.

Anyway, I found it interesting, in that he starts identifying some specific programs & departments we should totally eliminate.

Most other conservatives/authors say we should cut federal expenses, but never get specific about precisely WHICH expenses we should cut. That is no help. Any twit can piss and moan and wring his hands, about anything. Of course the liberal authors don't even have a clue about how real-life economics work.

And the bottom line is that a competent president and congress would WORK HARD at cutting ALL unnecessary programs/departments, and would work even harder at trying to eliminate all the waste, pork barrel and old-boy wasteful expenses from the departments and programs we should keep.

Essentially, the government could pay for what it needs just the same way you or I do. We prioritize what is absolutely required and then reduce or eliminate everything else.

We don't balance our personal budgets through one or two big cuts, but by taking meaningful slices out of every aspect of our possible expenditures. And "Voila!", we make it through the month.

If the Gov't was run like WE handle our personal finances this country would be in great shape.

.

Assuming, which they probably are LOW would be my guess, these figures are right, the $12 billion not only won't "pay for" obamacare, it won't even be a rounding error.......

quote:

This calculation has sparked some dissent. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.)

In any case, to check the accuracy of Chambliss’ claim, it doesn’t matter whether you use the $1.8 trillion figure or the $2.6 trillion figure, because we found at least three entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- that CBO estimates will have higher costs over the same 10-year period that Chambliss was referring to.

• Social Security. According to CBO, the 10-year cost of Social Security -- both old-age benefits and disability payments -- is about $11 trillion.

• Medicare: The cost for Medicare, the health program that serves all Americans 65 and older, is estimated to be $8 trillion over the same 10-year period, accoring to CBO.

• Medicaid: The federal share of Medicaid, the joint state-federal program to provide health care for low-income Americans, is projected to be $4.3 trillion over the same 10-year period, CBO says.

Each of these three programs exceeds even the higher, $2.6 trillion estimate of Obamacare’s costs over the exact same 10-year period.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

Most other conservatives/authors say we should cut federal expenses, but never get specific about precisely WHICH expenses we should cut. That is no help. Any twit can piss and moan and wring his hands, about anything. Of course the liberal authors don't even have a clue about how real-life economics work.

Real-life economics:

Central Valley farmers are predominantly Republicans, but need those Mexicans to harvest crops so they have enough money for campaign contributions.

Orange County residents are predominantly Republicans, but need Mexicans to do the gardening so they have time to rustle votes. Same for San Diego.

Any questions why things don't change, ask our governor. As mayor or Oakland, was in the process of approving some urban renewal when one of his liberal friends said that would harm the diversity of downtown; the mayor told him there was no diversity downtown, get over it. He's grown up a lot in the intervening years.

Then there is the still-unregulated market in credit default swaps...we just had to make the European banks whole after they bought those AAA-rated income streams, but couldn't find anybody who lied about them. There were $61 trillion dollars in these little beauties that were printed up on peoples' Lexmarks; the market is a lot bigger now that people know it won't be allowed to collapse.

Hedge funds are buying the foreclosures, renting them out, and selling them as securitized income streams. Here we go again, house bubble 2.0 is well under way.